Reserve Forces
Army National Guard's Role, Organization, and Equipment Need to be Reexamined
Gao ID: GAO-06-170T October 20, 2005
Since September 2001, the National Guard has experienced the largest activation of its members since World War II. Currently, over 30 percent of the Army forces now in Iraq are Army National Guard members, and Guard forces have also carried out various homeland security and large-scale disaster response roles. However, continued heavy use of the Guard forces has raised concerns about whether it can successfully perform and sustain both missions over time. In the short term, the National Guard is seeking additional funding for emergency equipment. GAO was asked to comment on (1) the changing role of the Army National Guard, (2) whether the Army National Guard has the equipment it needs to sustain federal and state missions, and (3) the extent to which DOD has strategies and plans to improve the Army National Guard's business model for the future.
The heavy reliance on National Guard forces for overseas and homeland missions since September 2001 has resulted in readiness problems which suggest that the current business model for the Army National Guard is not sustainable over time. Therefore, the business model should be reexamined in light of the current and expected national security environment, homeland security needs, and fiscal challenges the nation faces in the 21st century. Under post-Cold War planning assumptions, the Army National Guard was organized as a strategic reserve to be used primarily in the later stages of a conflict after receiving additional personnel, equipment and training. Therefore, in peacetime Army National Guard units did not have all the equipment and personnel they would need to perform their wartime missions. However, over 70,000 Guard personnel are now deployed for federal missions, with thousands more activated to respond to recent natural disasters. To provide ready forces, the Guard transferred large numbers of personnel and equipment among units, thereby exacerbating existing personnel and equipment shortages of non-deployed units. As a result, the preparedness of non-deployed units for future missions is declining. The need to reexamine the business model for the Army National Guard is illustrated by growing equipment shortages. As of July 2005, the Army National Guard had transferred over 101,000 equipment items to units deploying overseas, exhausting its inventory of some critical items, such as radios and generators, in non-deployed units. Nondeployed Guard units now face significant equipment shortfalls because: (1) prior to 2001, most Army National Guard units were equipped with 65 to 79 percent of their required war-time items and (2) Guard units returning from overseas operations have left equipment, such as radios and trucks for follow-on forces. The Army National Guard estimates that its units left over 64,000 items valued at over $1.2 billion overseas. However, the Army cannot account for over half of these items and does not have a plan to replace them, as DOD policy requires. Nondeployed Guard units now have only about one-third of the equipment they need for their overseas missions, which hampers their ability to prepare for future missions and conduct domestic operations. Without a plan and funding strategy that addresses the Guard's equipment needs for all its missions, DOD and Congress do not have assurance that the Army has an affordable plan to improve the Guard's equipment readiness. DOD is taking some steps to adapt to the new security environment and balance the Army National Guard's overseas and homeland missions. For example, the Army has embarked on reorganization to a modular, rotational force. Also, DOD issued a strategy for homeland defense and civil support in June 2005. However, until DOD develops an equipping plan and funding strategy to implement its initiatives, Congress and DOD will not have assurance that these changes will create a new business model that can sustain the Army National Guard affordably and effectively for the full range of its future missions.
GAO-06-170T, Reserve Forces: Army National Guard's Role, Organization, and Equipment Need to be Reexamined
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-170T
entitled 'Reserve Forces: Army National Guard's Role, Organization, and
Equipment Need to be Reexamined' which was released on October 20,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, October 20, 2005:
Reserve Forces:
Army National Guard's Role, Organization, and Equipment Need to be
Reexamined:
Statement of David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States:
GAO-06-170T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-170T, a testimony before the Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since September 2001, the National Guard has experienced the largest
activation of its members since World War II. Currently, over 30
percent of the Army forces now in Iraq are Army National Guard members,
and Guard forces have also carried out various homeland security and
large-scale disaster response roles. However, continued heavy use of
the Guard forces has raised concerns about whether it can successfully
perform and sustain both missions over time. In the short term, the
National Guard is seeking additional funding for emergency equipment.
GAO was asked to comment on (1) the changing role of the Army National
Guard, (2) whether the Army National Guard has the equipment it needs
to sustain federal and state missions, and (3) the extent to which DOD
has strategies and plans to improve the Army National Guard‘s business
model for the future.
What GAO Found:
The heavy reliance on National Guard forces for overseas and homeland
missions since September 2001 has resulted in readiness problems which
suggest that the current business model for the Army National Guard is
not sustainable over time. Therefore, the business model should be
reexamined in light of the current and expected national security
environment, homeland security needs, and fiscal challenges the nation
faces in the 21st century. Under post-Cold War planning assumptions,
the Army National Guard was organized as a strategic reserve to be used
primarily in the later stages of a conflict after receiving additional
personnel, equipment and training. Therefore, in peacetime Army
National Guard units did not have all the equipment and personnel they
would need to perform their wartime missions. However, over 70,000
Guard personnel are now deployed for federal missions, with thousands
more activated to respond to recent natural disasters. To provide ready
forces, the Guard transferred large numbers of personnel and equipment
among units, thereby exacerbating existing personnel and equipment
shortages of non-deployed units. As a result, the preparedness of non-
deployed units for future missions is declining.
The need to reexamine the business model for the Army National Guard is
illustrated by growing equipment shortages. As of July 2005, the Army
National Guard had transferred over 101,000 equipment items to units
deploying overseas, exhausting its inventory of some critical items,
such as radios and generators, in non-deployed units. Nondeployed Guard
units now face significant equipment shortfalls because: (1) prior to
2001, most Army National Guard units were equipped with 65 to 79
percent of their required war-time items and (2) Guard units returning
from overseas operations have left equipment, such as radios and trucks
for follow-on forces. The Army National Guard estimates that its units
left over 64,000 items valued at over $1.2 billion overseas. However,
the Army cannot account for over half of these items and does not have
a plan to replace them, as DOD policy requires. Nondeployed Guard units
now have only about one-third of the equipment they need for their
overseas missions, which hampers their ability to prepare for future
missions and conduct domestic operations. Without a plan and funding
strategy that addresses the Guard‘s equipment needs for all its
missions, DOD and Congress do not have assurance that the Army has an
affordable plan to improve the Guard‘s equipment readiness.
DOD is taking some steps to adapt to the new security environment and
balance the Army National Guard‘s overseas and homeland missions. For
example, the Army has embarked on reorganization to a modular,
rotational force. Also, DOD issued a strategy for homeland defense and
civil support in June 2005. However, until DOD develops an equipping
plan and funding strategy to implement its initiatives, Congress and
DOD will not have assurance that these changes will create a new
business model that can sustain the Army National Guard affordably and
effectively for the full range of its future missions.
What GAO Recommends:
For this statement, GAO drew on previous work, primarily on a report
titled: Reserve Forces: Plans Needed to Improve Army Guard Equipment
Readiness and Better Integrate Guard into Army Transformation
Initiatives (GAO-06-111). In this report, GAO makes recommendations
intended to improve the structure and readiness of the Army National
Guard for overseas and homeland operations. DOD agreed with the
recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-170T.
To view the full product, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Janet St. Laurent at (202) 512-4402 or
stlaurentj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the critical role of the
National Guard in conducting missions at home and overseas as well as
equipment issues affecting the Army National Guard. Recent and ongoing
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and new homeland missions
have led to higher demands on the reserve component, particularly the
Army National Guard. As we described in our previous report and
testimony on the Department of Defense's (DOD) use of the National
Guard, the launch of the Global War on Terrorism has resulted in the
largest activation of National Guard forces for overseas missions since
World War II. In addition, Guard members have been called upon to
perform new homeland security missions as well as state missions
ranging from fighting forest fires to providing hurricane relief. As of
July 2005, more than 30 percent of the Army forces deployed to
Operation Iraqi Freedom are National Guard members and as of September
2005 over 50,000 National Guard personnel from over 48 states, 2 U.S.
territories and the District of Columbia supported the hurricane
disaster response in the Gulf Coast.
Before I address the primary subject of this hearing, I would like to
bring an important matter to the attention of this committee relating
to the Guard and Reserves. This past Saturday evening, I had the
privilege and pleasure to attend the Annual Freedom Awards Banquet
sponsored by the National Committee of Employer Support for the Guard
and Reserve here in Washington. This year's banquet honored 15
employers, including Enterprise Rent-a-Car and Toyota Motor Sales, USA,
Inc. who demonstrated their above and beyond commitment to their
employees who are members of the Guard or Reserves. During the evening
it became clear to me that the U.S. Government is not leading by
example or practicing what it preaches in connection with employer
support for the Guard and Reserves. GAO would like to be able to do
what many of the awardees have already done but we are limited in doing
so under current law. Namely, we believe federal agencies should be
able to make up any salary differential that activated Guard and
Reserve members might otherwise lose out of our annual appropriation.
We would also like to be able to be sure that applicable employees and
their family members continue to receive their employer provided
benefits. We and other federal employers need your help to make this a
reality.
The Army National Guard's heavy involvement in recent operations and
growing equipment problems are a reflection of the significant changes
in the security environment--changes that are occurring at a time when
our nation is threatened by growing fiscal imbalances stemming, in
large part, from an aging population and rising health care costs. If
left unchecked, these fiscal imbalances will ultimately impede economic
growth, which could impact our ability to address key national and
homeland security needs. To assist the Congress in reviewing and
reconsidering federal programs in light of changing security threats
and fiscal challenges, we have identified a number of fundamental
questions that we believe policymakers will need to address in the
coming years to ensure that federal programs and organizations are
focused on the nation's highest priority challenges and are affordable
in light of fiscal projections. To facilitate a process of reexamining
the base of federal government, we issued a report in February 2005
that identifies a number of 21st century challenges and includes 12
reexamination areas.[Footnote 1] One of these areas is the need to
reassess defense programs and practices that stem from the Cold War
era. Within defense, a specific issue we believe bears review is the
need to reexamine the current business model for the reserve component.
The current business model is unsustainable, especially in light of
recent changes in how the DOD uses its reserve units. In essence, we
believe that policymakers need to focus on helping to assure that DOD
has an appropriate model for the National Guard that adequately
balances the demand for forces with appropriate human capital policies,
readiness standards, and equipping policies for all of the National
Guard's missions.
My statement today focuses on (1) challenges facing the Army National
Guard as a result of its changing role and high pace of operations, (2)
whether the Army National Guard has the equipment needed to maintain
readiness for future missions, and (3) the extent to which DOD is
transforming the Army National Guard to enhance its equipment posture
and preparedness for the future. In conjunction with this testimony, we
have also prepared a report[Footnote 2] at the committee's request, on
Army National Guard equipment issues and the Army's plans to convert
the Army National Guard to a modular force that equips units to support
continuous overseas operations.
To address these objectives, we drew from previous reports on the
National Guard's use for overseas and homeland security
missions[Footnote 3] and collected and analyzed data to assess the
status of Army National Guard equipment. To determine the status of
equipment, we analyzed information on the types and quantities of Army
National Guard equipment that have been used in overseas operations;
determined the equipment status of nondeployed units; assessed the
extent to which Army National Guard equipment has been retained
overseas to support ongoing operations; and identified some of the
equipment issues associated with responding to homeland security
missions and natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. To assess
DOD's transformation plans, we evaluated the Army's plans to convert
Guard units to modular brigades and develop a rotational deployment
model to equip units to support continuous overseas operations. We
interviewed officials in the DOD, the Department of the Army, the
National Guard Bureau, and the Army National Guard and supplemented
this information with visits to Army commands and two units--the 30th
Brigade Combat Team in North Carolina, which deployed in February 2004,
and the 48th Brigade Combat Team in Georgia, which deployed in May
2005. We selected these units because they enabled us to evaluate how
the process used to prepare units has changed with subsequent rotations
to Operation Iraqi Freedom. We also discussed the National Guard's
response to Hurricane Katrina with senior leaders of the National Guard
and visited National Guard officials in Louisiana and Mississippi to
gain their perspectives. We conducted our review of the National
Guard's equipment status from December 2004 to October 2005 and
determined that the data used were sufficiently reliable for our
objectives.
Summary:
The significant use of Army National Guard forces for overseas and
homeland missions since September 11, 2001 has resulted in declining
readiness, weakening the Army National Guard's preparedness for future
missions and indicating that DOD's business model for the Army National
Guard is unsustainable and needs to be reassessed. The current heavy
reliance on the Army National Guard for overseas operations represents
a fundamental change from the Guard's planned role as a strategic
reserve force whose principal role was to deploy in the later stages of
a major conflict if needed. Under this model, which still governs how
resources are provided to the Guard, the majority of Army National
Guard combat forces are only provided with 65 to 74 percent of the
people and 65 to79 percent of the equipment needed to conduct their
assigned wartime missions. Units are generally expected to receive
additional personnel, training, and equipment during a mobilization
period before deploying to support military operations. However, for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combatant commanders have required
the Army National Guard to provide large numbers fully manned and
equipped units to conduct stability operations on an ongoing basis. To
meet these demands, the Army National Guard has transferred thousands
of personnel and equipment from nondeployed units to support deploying
units. As a result, the preparedness of nondeployed units for future
missions is declining, and DOD's strategy of transferring large numbers
of equipment and personnel among units is showing signs of increased
stress. The declining readiness of nondeployed units could also make it
more difficult for the Guard to respond to homeland security and
disaster response missions. Importantly, DOD has not developed a system
for measuring the Guard's preparedness for such missions.
Worsening equipment shortfalls affecting the Army National Guard
illustrate the need for DOD to reexamine its strategy and plans for the
Army National Guard. As we noted in our report, National Guard Bureau
officials estimate that the Guard's nondeployed units had only about 34
percent of their essential warfighting equipment as of July 2005, after
subtracting equipment that has been left overseas, substitute items
that may be incompatible with the active component's equipment, or
items that are undergoing maintenance after being overseas. As of July
2005, the National Guard had transferred more than 101,000 pieces of
equipment from nondeploying units to fully equip deploying units. This
practice has depleted the Army National Guard's inventories of more
than 220 critical items, such as armored humvees, and reduced the
Guard's remaining inventory of other mission-essential items. In
addition to planned equipment shortfalls, another key reason why the
equipment condition of nondeployed units has worsened in recent months
is that the Army has required units returning from deployment to leave
significant quantities of equipment overseas for use by follow-on
forces. As of June 2005, Army National Guard units had left more than
64,000 pieces of equipment, valued at more than $1.2 billion, overseas
to support continuing operations. Moreover, the Army cannot account for
over half the equipment Army National Guard units have left overseas
and has not developed replacement plans for the equipment as, DOD
policy requires. Further, extensive use of the Guard's equipment
overseas has significantly reduced the amount of equipment available to
state governors for domestic needs. National Guard officials believe
that the National Guard's response to Hurricane Katrina was more
complicated because significant quantities of critical equipment, such
as satellite communications equipment, radios, trucks, helicopters, and
night vision goggles, were deployed to Iraq. In the absence of a plan
and funding strategy that addresses the Guard's equipment needs for all
its missions, DOD and the Congress currently do not have assurance that
the Army National Guard will be well prepared for future missions at
home or abroad, particularly those that arise on short notice.
DOD is undertaking some initiatives to improve the Guard's equipment
readiness and to balance its multiple roles in overseas and domestic
operations. However, it is not clear whether these initiatives will be
effective in enhancing the Army National Guard's equipment posture
because DOD has not yet developed detailed plans and included funding
for all the initiatives in its budget. The Army has begun reorganizing
Army National Guard units into modular brigades and is planning to
implement a rotational deployment model in which it expects Guard units
would deploy overseas no more than about once every 6 years. However,
the Army has not yet worked out many details of these initiatives, such
as what readiness standards units will be required to maintain after
returning from deployments, what specific types of equipment Guard
modular brigades will receive and how their equipping levels will
differ from the active component, and how quickly Guard units will be
provided new equipment needed for modular formations after converting
to the new modular structure. In addition, DOD has not yet fully
assessed the Guard's role and requirements for homeland defense and
civil support missions. In June 2005, DOD published a strategy for
homeland defense and civil support missions that recognizes the Army
National Guard's federal and state roles and sets out the department's
overall approach to securing the nation from attack. However, the
department has not determined how it will implement the strategy, nor
has it clarified the responsibilities of the National Guard or
established specific personnel and equipment requirements for these
missions, as we recommended in our 2004 report. Until these initiatives
are more fully developed and key implementation decisions are made, the
Congress will not be in a sound position to weigh the affordability and
effectiveness of DOD's strategy for positioning the Army National Guard
to remain a relevant and sufficiently equipped force for the future.
In the report we are publishing with this testimony, we are
recommending that DOD develop and submit to Congress a plan and funding
strategy that addresses the equipment needs of the Army National Guard
and a plan for the effective integration of the Army National Guard
into its rotational force model and modular force initiatives. DOD
agreed with our recommendations and said that it is taking actions to
posture Army National Guard forces for prolonged operations by building
a rotational force and developing resource plans for all Army units. It
further noted that the Army is taking steps to implement stricter
accountability over Guard equipment currently left in theater and is
working to develop replacement plans for these items.
Background:
As we have previously testified,[Footnote 4] legislative proposals
involving substantial long-term costs and commitments should be
considered in the context of the serious fiscal challenges facing this
country. The federal government's liabilities and commitments have
grown from $20.4 trillion to $43.3 trillion from fiscal year 2000
through fiscal year 2004. This amount continues to increase due to
continuing deficits, known demographic trends, and compounding interest
costs. Furthermore, our long-range budget simulations show that this
nation faces a large and growing structural deficit. Given the size of
our projected deficit, we will not be able to eliminate the deficit
through economic growth alone. The long-term fiscal pressures created
by the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, rising health
care costs, and increased homeland security and defense commitments
intensify the need to weigh existing federal budgetary resources
against emerging new priorities. In our 21st Century Challenges
report,[Footnote 5] we noted that it is time for a baseline review of
all major federal programs and policies, including the military's
reserve components. [Footnote 6] We have previously reported on a
number of military force management issues in the active and reserve
components, including roles and missions of the Army and Air National
Guard [Footnote 7]and the Army Reserve[Footnote 8] and the process for
assessing the numbers of active duty military forces.[Footnote 9] We
have also reported on a number of military personnel issues, including
military compensation, health care, and recruiting and retention. In
each of these areas, questions have arisen as to whether DOD has the
right strategies to cost effectively sustain the total force in the
future. In the case of the National Guard, how this is accomplished is
of particular importance in light of its dual missions of supporting
overseas operations as well as its considerable responsibilities in its
state and homeland security roles.
The National Guard of the United States consists of two branches: the
Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. The National Guard
Bureau is the federal entity responsible for the administration of both
the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. The Army National
Guard, which is authorized 350,000 soldiers, makes up more than one-
half of the Army's ground combat forces and one-third of its support
forces (e.g., military police and transportation units). Army National
Guard units are located at more than 3,000 armories and bases in all 50
states and 4 U.S. territories. Traditionally, the majority of Guard
members are employed on a part-time basis, typically training 1 weekend
per month and 2 weeks per year. The Guard also employs some full-time
personnel who assist unit commanders in administrative, training, and
maintenance tasks. In the past 2 years, the Army National Guard has
faced increasing challenges in recruiting new soldiers to fill
authorized positions.
Army National Guard personnel may be ordered to duty under three
general statutory frameworks - Titles 10 or 32 of the United States
Code or pursuant to state law in a state active duty status. In a Title
10 status, Army National Guard personnel are federally funded and under
federal command and control. Personnel may enter Title 10 status by
being ordered to active duty, either voluntarily or involuntarily
(i.e., mobilization) under appropriate circumstances. When Army
National Guard forces are activated[Footnote 10] under Title 10, the
National Guard is subject to the Posse Comitatus Act,[Footnote 11]
which prohibits it from law enforcement activities unless expressly
authorized by the Constitution or law. Personnel in Title 32 status are
federally funded but under state control. Title 32 is the status in
which National Guard personnel typically perform training for their
federal mission. In addition, the federal government reimburses states
for Guard units' activities in response to federally-designated
disasters, such as hurricane response. Personnel performing state
missions are state funded and under state command and control. Under
state law, a governor may order National Guard personnel to respond to
emergencies, civil disturbances, or perform other duties authorized by
state law. While the Army National Guard performs both federal and
state missions, the Guard is organized, trained, and equipped for its
federal missions, and these take priority over state missions.
The Guard can also be tasked with homeland security missions under the
state governors or, when activated, by DOD under command of the
President. DOD refers to its contributions to the overall homeland
security effort as "homeland defense." Homeland defense activities
include military missions within the United States, such as flying
armed patrols over U.S. cities and guarding military installations. DOD
also supports civilian authorities to provide quick response or
capabilities that other agencies do not have. The U.S. Northern Command
provides command and control for DOD's homeland defense missions,
including land, air, aerospace, and maritime defense operations, and
coordinates DOD's support to civil authorities for homeland security
missions.
Declining Preparedness from High Pace of Operations Signifies A Need to
Reexamine the Army National Guard's Business Model:
As we previously reported, the high number of Army National Guard
forces used to support overseas and homeland missions since September
11, 2001, has resulted in decreased preparedness of nondeployed Guard
forces[Footnote 12] which suggests the need to reassess DOD's business
model for the Army National Guard. We have previously reported that
high-performing organizations must reexamine their business models to
ensure that their structures and investment strategies enable them to
meet external changes in their operational environments efficiently and
effectively.[Footnote 13] To meet the demand for forces since September
11, especially for forces with special skills that reside heavily in
the Army National Guard, such as military police, over 50 percent of
Army National Guard members have been called upon to deploy. At the
same time, the Army National Guard's involvement in operations at home
has taken on higher priority since 2001. The change in the roles and
missions of the Army National Guard has not been matched with a change
in its equipping strategy that reflects its new high pace of
operations, and as a result the Army National Guard's ability to
continue to support ongoing operations is declining.
In keeping with post-Cold War planning assumptions, most Army National
Guard units were not expected to deploy in the early days of a
conflict, but to augment active duty units in the event of an extended
conflict. Therefore, the Army accepted some operational risk by
providing the Army National Guard fewer soldiers than it would need to
fully equip its units and less equipment than it would need to deploy,
on the assumption that there would be time to provide additional
personnel, equipment, and training during the mobilization process
before units would deploy. For example, as of 2004, the Army National
Guard's force structure called for about 375,000 soldiers, but it was
authorized about 350,000 soldiers. In addition, Army National Guard
combat units are only provided from 65 to 74 percent of the personnel
and from 65 to 79 percent of the equipment they would need to deploy,
depending on the priority assigned to their warfighting missions.
However, after September 11, 2001, the President authorized reservists
to be activated for up to 2 years, and approximately 280,000 Army
National Guard personnel have been activated to support recent
operations. As of July 2005, about 35,500 Army National Guard members
were deployed to Iraq--nearly one-third of the 113,000 U.S. forces in
theater. Army National Guard personnel deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq
are expected to serve 1 year in these countries and to spend up to
several additional months mobilizing and demobilizing. As figure 1
shows, the number of activated Army National Guard personnel for
federal missions has declined since its peak in December 2004 and
January 2005. However, the Army National Guard continues to provide a
substantial number of personnel to support current operations.
Figure 1: Army National Guard Activity under Federal Command and
Control from September 2001 through July 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Army National Guard has begun adapting its forces to meet the
warfighting requirements of current operations, but some measures taken
to meet immediate needs have made sustaining future operations more
challenging. Because its units did not have all the resources they
needed to deploy at the outset of current operations, the Army National
Guard has had to transfer personnel and equipment from nondeploying
units to prepare deploying units. We reported in November 2004 that as
of May 2004, the Army National Guard had performed over 74,000
personnel transfers and shifted over 35,000 pieces of equipment to
deploying units. These initial transfers worsened personnel and
equipment shortages in units that were then alerted for deployment and
had to be staffed and equipped through more transfers. The cumulative
effect of these personnel and equipment transfers has been a decline in
the readiness of Army National Guard forces for future missions, both
at overseas and at home.
Even as significant numbers of personnel and equipment are supporting
overseas operations, since September 11, 2001, the Army National
Guard's role in homeland security and civil support has taken on
greater priority, as demonstrated by the Guard's recent involvement in
responding to Hurricane Katrina. Since September 11, 2001, the Guard
has performed other operational duties such as providing airport
security and supporting events such as the 2004 Democratic and
Republican national conventions. In the pre-September 11 security
environment, it was assumed that the National Guard could perform its
domestic roles with the personnel and equipment it was supplied for its
warfighting missions. While the Army National Guard is implementing
pilot programs to strengthen capabilities to respond to homeland
security needs, such as improving critical infrastructure protection,
there has been no comprehensive analysis of the full spectrum of the
Guard's roles and requirements for homeland security, as we
recommended.[Footnote 14] Until such an analysis is completed,
congressional policymakers may not be in the best position to assess
whether the Army National Guard's current structure and equipment can
enable it to sustain increased homeland security responsibilities in
addition to its overseas missions.
Critical Equipment Shortages Have Degraded the Readiness of Nondeployed
Army National Guard Units for Future Overseas and Domestic Missions:
Increasing equipment shortages among nondeployed Army National Guard
units illustrate the need for DOD to reexamine its equipping strategy
and business model for the Army National Guard. The amount of essential
warfighting equipment nondeployed National Guard units have on hand has
continued to decrease since we last reported on the Army National Guard
in 2004. Compounding the equipment shortages that have developed
because most Army National Guard units are still structured with lesser
amounts of equipment than they need to deploy, Army National Guard
units have left more than 64,000 equipment items valued at over $1.2
billion in Iraq for use by follow-on forces; however, the Army has not
developed replacement plans for this equipment as required by DOD
policy. In addition, DOD has not determined the Army National Guard's
equipment requirements for homeland security missions, and some states
are concerned about the Guard's preparedness for future missions.
Equipment Status of Nondeployed Units Has Worsened in Recent Months due
to Challenges in Supporting Overseas Operations with Current Inventory
Levels:
While most Army National Guard combat units are typically provided from
65 to 79 percent of the equipment they would need for their wartime
missions, for recent operations, combatant commanders have required
units to deploy with 90 to100 percent of the equipment they are
expected to need and with equipment that is compatible with active Army
units. While the Army can supply deploying Army National Guard forces
with additional equipment after they are mobilized, nondeployed Guard
units will be challenged to maintain readiness for future missions
because they transferred equipment to deploying units and have less
equipment to train with or to use for other contingencies.
The Army National Guard began transferring people and equipment to
ready units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan in the early days of the
Global War on Terrorism and the number of transfers has grown as
overseas operations have continued. In June 2004 the Army National
Guard had transferred more than 35,000 pieces of equipment to ready
units for overseas operations.[Footnote 15] By July 2005, the number of
equipment items transferred among Army National Guard units had grown
to more than 101,000 items. As a result of these transfers, the
proportion of nondeployed units that reported having the minimum amount
of equipment they would need to deploy[Footnote 16] dropped from 87
percent in October 2002 to 59 percent in May 2005. However, Army
National Guard officials estimated that when substitute items which may
be incompatible with active forces, equipment undergoing maintenance,
and equipment left overseas for follow-on forces are subtracted,
nondeployed units had only about 34 percent of their essential
warfighting equipment as of July 2005. Further, as of July 2005, the
Army National Guard reported that it had less than 5 percent of the
required amount or a quantity of fewer than 5 each of more than 220
critical items. Among these 220 high-demand items were generators,
trucks, and radios, which could also be useful for domestic missions.
Retaining Army National Guard Equipment Overseas without Plans for
Replacement Hinders the Guard's Ability to Prepare and Train Units:
To address equipment requirements for current overseas operations, the
Army now requires units, in both the active and reserve components, to
leave certain essential items that are in short supply in Iraq for
follow-on units to use,[Footnote 17] but it has not developed plans to
replace Army National Guard equipment as DOD policy requires. [Footnote
18] The Army's requirement for leaving equipment overseas is intended
to reduce the amount of equipment that has to be transported from the
United States to theater, to better enable units to meet their
deployment dates, and to maintain stocks of essential equipment in
theater where it is most needed. While this equipping approach has
helped meet current operational needs, it has continued the cycle of
reducing the pool of equipment available to nondeployed forces for
responding to contingencies and for training.
The Army National Guard estimates that since 2003, it has left more
than 64,000 equipment items valued at over $1.2 billion overseas to
support continuing operations, but the Army lacks visibility and cannot
account for all this equipment and has not developed plans to replace
it. According to Army officials, even though DOD policy requires the
Army to replace equipment transferred to it from the reserve component
for more than 90 days,[Footnote 19] the Army neither created a
mechanism in the early phases of the war to track Guard equipment left
in theater nor prepared replacement plans for this equipment because
the practice of leaving equipment behind was intended to be a short-
term measure. As operations continued, in June 2004, the Army tasked
the Army Materiel Command with overseeing equipment retained in
theater. However, according to Army and National Guard officials, the
Army Materiel Command developed plans to track only certain high-demand
equipment items that are in short supply, such as armored humvees and
other items designated to remain in theater for the duration of the
conflict. As of July 2005, the National Guard Bureau estimates that the
Army Material Command was only tracking about 45 percent of the over
64,000 equipment items the Army National Guard units have left in
theater. The tracking effort does not include over half of the
equipment items, such as cargo trucks, rough terrain forklifts, and
palletized load trucks Guard units have left behind that were only
documented at the unit level through unit property records, even though
these items may remain in theater for up to 3 years. As a result, the
Guard does not know when or whether its equipment will be returned,
which challenges its ability to prepare and train for future missions.
As operations have continued, the amount of Guard equipment retained in
theater has increased and has hampered the ability of returning Guard
units to maintain a high level of readiness and train new personnel.
For example, according to Army National Guard officials, three Illinois
Army National Guard military police units were required to leave almost
all of their humvees, about 130, in Iraq when they returned home from
deployment, so they could not conduct training to maintain the
proficiency they acquired while overseas or train new recruits. In all,
the National Guard reported that 14 military police companies left over
600 humvees and other armored trucks overseas, and these items are
expected to remain in theater for the duration of operations.
In May 2005, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
expressed concerns about the significant amount of equipment Army
National Guard units have left overseas and directed the Army to
develop replacement plans as required by DOD policy.[Footnote 20] The
Army expects to complete its plans to replace stay behind equipment by
October 2005. While Army officials have stated that the equipment
tracked by individual units may eventually be returned to the Guard,
both Army and Army National Guard officials said that even if this
equipment is eventually returned, its condition is likely to be poor
given its heavy use and some of it will likely need to be replaced.
Until the Army develops plans to replace the equipment, including
identifying timetables and funding sources, the National Guard will
continue to face critical equipment shortages that reduce its readiness
for future missions and it will be challenged to train and prepare for
future missions. In the report we are publishing concurrently with the
testimony,[Footnote 21] we recommended that DOD develop and submit to
the Congress a plan and funding strategy that address the equipment
needs of the Army National Guard for the Global War on Terrorism and
how the Army will transition from short-term equipping measures to long-
term equipping solutions. DOD agreed with this recommendation, stating
in its written comments that the Army needs to determine how Army
National Guard forces will be equipped to meet state disaster response
and potential homeland defense requirements and include these
requirements in its resource priorities. We believe that such a plan
should address the measures the Army will take to ensure it complies
with existing DOD directives to safeguard reserve component equipment
readiness.
States Are Concerned about Preparedness for Future Domestic Missions in
Light of Growing Army National Guard Equipment Shortages:
While Army National Guard forces have supported a range of homeland
security missions since September 11, 2001, states are concerned about
the Guard's ability to perform future domestic missions given its
declining equipment status. For example, New Jersey officials told us
that Army National Guard units lacked some essential equipment, such as
chemical protective suits and nerve agent antidotes; they needed to
respond to a terrorist threat in December 2003. More recently,
Louisiana Army National Guard units lacked some key items they needed
to conduct large-scale disaster response. According to National Guard
officials, at the time Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast, much of
the Guard's most modern equipment was deployed to Iraq while less
capable equipment remained in the United States. We are currently
examining the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, including the
roles of DOD's active duty and reserve forces. At the time of the
hurricane over 8,200 personnel and two brigade sets of equipment from
the 155th Armored Brigade of Mississippi and the 256th Infantry Brigade
of Louisiana were deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and
were not available to perform their domestic missions. Furthermore, the
Adjutant General of Louisiana reported to the Army National Guard in
August 2005 that based on their analysis of the state Guard's equipment
for state missions, even after the 256th Infantry Brigade returned home
from deployment, the brigade would lack about 350 essential equipment
items needed for hurricane response including trucks, humvees,
wreckers, and water trailers because it was required to leave a
majority of its equipment items in Iraq. When we visited the area in
October 2005, Louisiana National Guard officials particularly noted
that more radios would have enabled them to communicate with other
forces and more vehicles that could be used in high water would have
been very helpful.
Louisiana and Mississippi, like many other states, have entered into
mutual assistance agreements with other states to provide additional
National Guard forces in times of need, typically to facilitate natural
disaster response.[Footnote 22] Under such agreements, in August and
September 2005, over 50,000 National Guard personnel from 48 states, 2
U.S. territories and the District of Columbia responded to the
devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast
region. According to Louisiana officials, state partners were proactive
in identifying troops to send to the area when the magnitude of the
storm was anticipated. These forces brought with them additional
equipment such as key command and control equipment and aviation
assets.
DOD and Army Have Some Initiatives to Improve Future Readiness of Army
National Guard Forces but Has Not Developed Detailed Implementation and
Funding Plans:
DOD, and the Army have recognized the need to transform the Army
National Guard to meet the new threats of the 21st century and support
civil authorities, and are undertaking some initiatives to improve the
Guard's organization and readiness for these missions. However, it is
too early to determine whether these initiatives together comprise a
sustainable equipping and funding model for the future because
implementation plans are not complete and funding strategies have not
been fully identified. For example, the Army has not decided how to
manage equipment to ready forces as they move through the proposed
rotational force model. In addition, while DOD has produced a strategy
for homeland defense and civil support in June 2005, it has not yet
completed a plan to implement that strategy, including clarifying the
Army National Guard's role and assessing what capabilities the Guard
will require for domestic missions, as we previously recommended. Until
these initiatives are more fully developed and key implementation
decisions are made, DOD and the Congress will not be in a sound
position to weigh their affordability and effectiveness, and the Army
National Guard will be challenged to train and prepare for all its
future missions.
Army Converting Guard to Modular Designs, but Plans and Cost Estimates
for Equipping Units Are Incomplete:
In 2004, the Army developed a plan to restructure Army forces,
including the Army National Guard, to become more flexible and capable
of achieving a wide range of missions, but it has not yet completed
detailed implementation plans or cost estimates for its transformation.
Rather than being organized around divisions, the Army will transform
to an organization based on standardized, modular brigades that can be
tailored to meet the specific needs of the combatant commander. Two
primary goals of this new structure are to standardize designs and
equipment requirements for both active and reserve units and maintain
reserve units at a higher level of readiness than in the past. While
the Army plans to convert most Army National Guard units to the modular
organizational structure by 2008, Guard forces will not be fully
equipped for the new design until 2011 at the earliest. The Army had
originally planned to convert Guard units on a slower schedule by 2010,
but at the request of the Army National Guard, accelerated the
conversions so that Guard units would share the new standardized
organizational designs with the active component at least 2 years
earlier, which is expected to help avoid training soldiers for the
previous skill mix and better facilitate recruiting and retention
efforts. However, our work indicates that accelerated modular
conversions will exacerbate near-term equipment shortfalls for three
key reasons. First, according to current plans, units will be expected
to convert to the new modular designs with the equipment they have on
hand. However, because of existing shortages and the large number of
equipment items that deployed units have left in Iraq or that need
repair or replacement due to heavy use, units will not have the
equipment needed for their new unit designs. For example, converted
Guard units expect initially to be without some key equipment items
that provide improved capabilities, such as unmanned aerial vehicles,
single channel ground and airborne radio systems, and Javelin antitank
missiles. Second, the Army has not planned funding to provide equipment
based on the new conversion schedule. Instead, the Army plans to
proceed with the original equipping schedule, which will not equip the
Guard's modular force until at least 2011. Army resourcing policy gives
higher priority to units engaged in operations or preparing to deploy
than those undergoing modular conversions. As a result, the
requirements of ongoing operations will continue to deplete the Army
National Guard's equipment resources and will affect the pace at which
equipment will be available for nondeployed units to transform to the
modular design. In the meantime, modular Guard units are expected to
continue using equipment that may be older than their active
counterparts' and will initially lack some key enablers, such as
communications systems, which are the basis for the improved
effectiveness of modular units.
In addition to the equipment shortfalls and lack of comparability that
are projected for near-term Guard conversions, the Army's initial
estimate of $15.6 billion through 2011 for converting Guard units to
modular designs is incomplete and likely to grow for several reasons.
First, the Army's cost estimate was based on a less modern equipping
plan than the design the Army tested for the new brigades. Second, the
estimate does not include costs for 10 of the Guard's support units,
nor does it include nearly $1.4 billion that the Guard currently
estimates is needed for military construction costs associated with the
modular conversion of the Guard's 40 support units. Third, current cost
estimates assume that Guard equipment inventories will be at prewar
levels and available for modular conversions. This, however, may not be
a reasonable assumption because as discussed previously, Army National
Guard units have left large amounts of equipment overseas, some of
which will be retained indefinitely, and the Army has not provided
plans for its replacement. The lack of complete equipping requirements
and cost estimates for converting the Army National Guard to the new
modular structure raises concerns about the affordability and
effectiveness of this multibillion dollar restructuring effort.
Furthermore, without more detailed data, the Congress may not have
sufficient information to fully evaluate the adequacy of the Army's
funding requests for its modular force initiative.
Army Plans for Managing Equipment under Its Rotational Force Model Are
Not Complete:
While the Army plans to transform into a rotational force, it has not
yet finalized plans for how Army National Guard units will be equipped
under its new model. The rotational force model is intended to provide
units with a predictable cycle of increasing readiness for potential
mobilization once every 6 years. As such, it involves a major change in
the way the Army planned to use its reserve forces and has implications
for the amount and types of equipment that Army National Guard units
will need for training to improve their readiness as they progress
through the cycle. Under the rotational force concept, rather than
maintain units at less than full readiness, the Army would cycle Army
National Guard units through phases of increasing readiness and provide
increasing amounts of equipment to units as they move through three
training phases and near readiness with the goal of predictable
availability for potential deployment once in a 6-year period.
While the Army has developed a general proposal to equip units
according to the readiness requirements of each phase of the rotational
force model, it has not yet detailed the types and quantities of items
required in each phase. Under this proposal, the Army National Guard
would have three types of equipment sets: baseline sets, training sets,
and deployment sets. The baseline set would vary by unit type and
assigned mission and the equipment it includes could be significantly
reduced from the amount called for in the unit design, but plans call
for it to provide at least the equipment Guard units would need for
domestic missions, although this standard has not been defined.
Training sets would include more of the equipment units will need to be
ready for deployment, but units would share equipment that would be
located at training sites throughout the country. The deployment set
would include all equipment needed for deployment, including theater-
specific equipment, items provided through operational needs
statements, and equipment from Army prepositioned stocks. At the time
of our report, the Army was still developing the proposals for what
would be included in the three equipment sets and planned to publish
the final requirements in December 2005.
At present, it is not clear how the equipment requirements associated
with supporting deployment under the new rotational readiness cycle
will affect the types and quantities of items available for converting
the Army National Guard to a modular force. Until the near-term
requirements for the rotational model and long-term requirements for a
modular force are fully defined and integrated, the cost of equipment
needed to most efficiently implement the two initiatives will not be
clear. Without firm decisions as to requirements for both the new
modular structure and rotational deployment model and a plan that
integrates requirements, the Army and Army National Guard are not in a
position to develop complete cost estimates or to determine whether the
modular and rotation initiatives will maintain the Guard's readiness
for all its missions, including warfighting, homeland security, and
traditional state missions such as disaster response. In our
report,[Footnote 23] we recommend that DOD develop and submit to the
Congress a plan for the effective integration of the Army National
Guard into the Army's rotational force model and modular initiatives.
We recommended that this plan include the equipment requirements,
costs, timelines and funding strategy for converting Army National
Guard units to the modular force and the extent to which the Army
National Guard will have the types of equipment and equipment levels
comparable to the active modular units. We further recommended that the
plan include an analysis of the equipment the Army National Guard's
units will need for their missions in each phase of the rotational
cycle and how the Army will manage implementation risks to modular
forces if full funding is not provided on expected timelines. DOD
agreed with our recommendation.
DOD Has Developed a Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support,
but Identification of Requirements and Readiness Measures Are Not
Complete:
In June 2005, DOD published its Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil
Support, which recognizes the National Guard's critical role in these
missions in both its federal and state capacities. However, the
strategy does not detail what the Army National Guard's role or
requirements will be in implementing the strategy. DOD has not yet
completed a review of the full range of the Army National Guard's
missions and the assets it will need to successfully execute them. In
the absence of such requirements, National Guard units will continue to
be structured and funded largely for their warfighting roles, and with
the exception of certain specialized units, such as weapons of mass
destruction civil support teams, Army National Guard forces are
generally expected to perform civil support missions with either the
resources supplied for their warfighting missions or equipment supplied
by states.
In its homeland defense and civil support strategy,[Footnote 24] DOD
sets goals of:
(1) maximizing threat awareness; (2) deterring or defeating threats
away from the U.S. homeland; (3) achieving mission assurance in
performance of assigned duties under attack or after disruption; (4)
supporting civil authorities in minimizing the damage and recovering
from domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-
yield explosive mass casualty attacks; and (5) improving national and
international capabilities for homeland defense and homeland security.
The strategy recognizes the need to manage risks in the homeland
defense and civil support mission areas given resource challenges the
department faces in performing all its missions. Therefore, the
strategy puts first priority on homeland defense missions that the
department will lead, with second priority on ensuring the department's
ability to support civil authorities in the event of multiple mass
casualties from chemical, biological, radiation, or nuclear incidents
within the United States.
To accomplish these goals, DOD has noted that it will have to integrate
strategy, planning, and operational capabilities for homeland defense
and civil support more fully into its processes. It plans to implement
its strategy with dual-purpose forces that are simultaneously trained
and equipped for warfighting and homeland missions. The strategy
recognizes that National Guard forces not on federal active duty can
respond quickly to perform homeland defense and homeland security
within U.S. territory and are particularly well suited for civil
support missions because of their locations across the nation and
experience in supporting neighboring communities in times of crisis.
Based on this strategy, U.S. Northern Command has been tasked to
develop detailed contingency plans to identify the full range of forces
and resources needed for the homeland missions DOD may lead or the
civil support missions in which active or reserve forces should be
prepared to assist federal or state authorities. However, it is not
clear when this effort will be completed.
DOD has taken some steps to develop additional information on the
National Guard's readiness for some of its domestic missions. In August
2005, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) directed
the National Guard to include readiness assessments for both its Title
10 (federal missions) and Title 32 (state missions conducted with
federal funding) in the department's new readiness reporting system,
the Defense Readiness Reporting System, which is scheduled for
implementation in 2007. The new system is expected provide officials
better visibility into unit readiness by reporting standardized metrics
rather than general categories of readiness. The National Guard Bureau
is also preparing a report for the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness) on concepts for reporting the Guard's
readiness for domestic missions and plans to prepare a detailed
implementation plan by mid-January 2006. Until detailed concepts and
implementation for these plans for domestic readiness reporting are
developed and approved, it is not clear whether they will fully meet
the recommendation in our prior report that DOD establish readiness
standards and measures for the full range of the Guard's homeland
missions so that readiness for these missions can be systematically
measured and accurately reported.
As we reported in 2004, some states expressed concerns about the Army
National Guard's preparedness to undertake state missions, including
supporting homeland security missions and disaster relief, given the
increase in overseas deployments and the shortages of personnel and
equipment among the remaining Guard units. Moreover, to meet new
threats, some homeland security missions could require training and
equipment, such as decontamination training and equipment that differ
from that needed to support warfighting missions. Some Guard officials
noted that states have limited budgets and that homeland security
requirements compete with other needs, although the states have funded
some homeland security activities, such as guarding critical
infrastructure, and have purchased some equipment for homeland security
purposes.
To address some potential homeland security needs, DOD began
establishing weapons of mass destruction civil support teams within the
Army National Guard, as authorized by Presidential Directive and the
Congress in fiscal year 1999. These teams, which are comprised of 22
full-time personnel, are maintained at high readiness levels and can
respond rapidly to assist local officials in determining the nature of
an attack, provide medical and technical advice, and help identify
follow-on federal and state assets that might be needed. These teams
are unique because they are federally funded and trained, but perform
their missions under the command and control of the state governor. In
the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana civil support team
provided command and control technology that was valuable in responding
to this natural disaster.
Conclusions:
While strategies such as transferring large numbers of Army National
Guard personnel and equipment from non-deploying units to deploying
units and leaving Guard equipment overseas have met DOD's immediate
needs to support overseas operations, these strategies are not
sustainable in the long term, especially as increasing numbers of Army
National Guard personnel have already been deployed for as long as 2
years, recruiting challenges have arisen, and equipment challenges have
increased. The current status of the Army's equipment inventory is one
symptom of the much larger problem of an outdated business model.
Critical shortages of deployable equipment and the Army's lack of
accountability over the Army National Guard's equipment retained
overseas have created considerable uncertainty about what equipment the
Guard will have available for training and domestic missions, and DOD
has not developed detailed plans that include timeframes and identify
resources for replacing equipment that has been heavily used or left
overseas in the short term. Without replacement plans for equipment its
units left overseas, Army National Guard units are unable to plan for
training and equipping forces for future missions. Moreover, without a
broader rethinking of the basis for Army National Guard equipment
requirements that considers both overseas and homeland security
requirements, preparedness will continue to decline and the Guard may
not be well positioned to respond to future overseas or homeland
missions or contingencies. As a result, we are recommending that DOD
develop an equipping strategy that addresses how the Army National
Guard will transition from short-term equipping measures to long-term
solutions.
DOD and the Army are implementing some initiatives to transform the
Army National Guard so that it can better support a broader range of
missions in light of the new security environment characterized by new
threats, including global terrorism. These initiatives include
establishing modular brigades; establishing a rotational model that
seeks to target equipment to a unit's expected mission; and clarifying
the Guard's role, training, and equipment needs for homeland security
missions. However, supporting ongoing operations will continue to
strain Army National Guard equipment inventories, and, under current
plans, equipping Guard units for new modular designs will take several
years. Further, it is not clear that these initiatives will result in a
comprehensive and integrated strategy for ensuring that the Army
National Guard is well prepared for overseas missions, homeland
security needs, and state missions such as responding to natural
disasters. We are therefore making recommendations to better integrate
its initiatives. In this regard, we believe that the Congress and
senior DOD leadership must be ready to play a key role in pressing the
Army to provide more detailed plans for these initiatives and outlining
the specific funding required to implement them in the most efficient
manner.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may
have.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For more information regarding this testimony, please contact Janet St.
Laurent, Director, at (202) 512-4402. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Margaret Morgan, Assistant
Director; Frank Cristinzio; Alissa Czyz; Curtis Groves; Nicole Harms;
Tina Morgan Kirschbaum; Kim Mayo; Kenneth Patton; Jay Smale; and
Suzanne Wren.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb., 2005).
[2] GAO, Reserve Forces: Plans Needed to Improve Army National Guard
Equipment Readiness and Better Integrate Guard into Army Transformation
Initiatives, GAO-06-111 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2005).
[3] GAO, Reserve Forces: Observations on Recent National Guard Use in
Overseas and Homeland Missions, GAO-04-670T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29,
2204.) and Reserve Forces: Actions Needed to Better Prepare the
National Guard for Future Overseas and Domestic Missions, GAO-05-21
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2004).
[4] See GAO, Long-Term Fiscal Issues: The Need for Social Security
Reform, GAO-05-318T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 9, 2005); Budget Process:
Long-term Focus Is Critical, GAO-04-585T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23,
2004); Long-term Budget Issues: Moving from Balancing the Budget to
Balancing Fiscal Risk, GAO-01-385T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2001).
[5] See GAO-05-325SP.
[6] The reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces are the Army
National Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve, the Naval
Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard of the United
States, the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. The
Selected Reserve consists of military members assigned to organized
reserve units and reservists who participate in at least 48 scheduled
drills or training periods each year and serve on active duty for
training of not less than 14 days during each year.
[7] See GAO-05-21.
[8] See GAO, Reserve Forces: An Integrated Plan is Needed to Address
Army Reserve Personnel and Equipment Shortages, GAO-05-660 (Washington,
D.C.: Jul. 2005).
[9] See GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Conduct a Data-Driven
Analysis of Active Military Personnel Levels Required to Implement the
Defense Strategy, GAO-05-200 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2005).
[10] Activation refers to the ordering of units and individual members
of the reserve component, which includes the Army National Guard, to
active duty under the statutory authority granted to the President, the
Congress, or the secretaries of the military departments.
[11] 18 U.S.C. § 1385. The Army and Air Force are prohibited by the Act
and the Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by Defense Directive
5525.5.E.4.1.3.
[12] See GAO-05-21.
[13] See GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-
373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[14] See GAO-05-21.
[15] See GAO-05-21.
[16] To meet minimum deployment criteria, a unit must generally have at
least 80 percent of its mission-essential equipment items on hand.
[17] The Army has directed that equipment purchased specifically for
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, or other key
items currently in short supply such as armored vehicles, improvised
explosive device jammers, long-range surveillance systems, and
generator sets, remain in theater for the duration of operations.
[18] DOD Directive 1225.6, Equipping the Reserve Forces, April 7, 2005.
[19] Replacement plans for removed equipment and supplies are not
required for transfers in support of force restructuring adopted as
result of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process
decisions approved by the Secretary of Defense.
[20] The Comptroller General plans to initiate additional work on
accountability for equipment left overseas this fall. That work will
further explore strategies to manage this equipment and address the
ramifications of plans for the disposition of this equipment.
[21] See GAO-06-111.
[22] While the mutual support arrangements, called Emergency Management
Assistance Compacts, have been useful in responding to natural
disasters, it is not clear whether these arrangements will always meet
the states' needs for forces or capabilities for homeland security
missions because states can withhold forces if they are needed in their
home state.
[23] See GAO-06-111.
[24] Department of Defense, Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil
Support (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 2005).